Interesting Documentary

[SeVeR]

Al Quaeda is !@#$%^&*ociated with most of the governments in the middle east.

 

It says nothing about 2006

That's because it was written in 2005 and 2005 hadn't even finished. They offered a prediction about 2006 but they can't give any figures because that was in the future and still is because 2006 isn't over now either.

 

It also mentions that Afghan warlords who are US allies make money from the Opium trade, but it never says anywhere that the US profits from it.

They make money from it because it'd be a !@#$%^&* of a lot more expensive to buy it from other countries. The opium trade is BIG business and Afghanistan supplies 90% of it, with Afghanistan wiping out crops the drugs business would take a major hit, now that the US succesfully invaded the drugs are flowing once again and 2006 looks to be a boom year with one of the biggest crops ever.

[LearJett+]

You ignore the fact that it said opium production was down 30%.

 

and 2006 looks to be a boom year with one of the biggest crops ever.

Where do you get that from?

[SeVeR]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...9-3-2006_pg4_15

 

The move comes two days after the Afghan government and the United Nations warned that they expect cultivation of opium poppies to increase across large swathes of the country this year. Afghanistan is the source of nearly 90 percent of the world’s opium and heroin even though the international community has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into fighting the trade since the hard-line Taliban regime was ousted by a US-led invasion in 2001.

 

Any predicted decrease was wrong. Even if 2005 did end up less than 2004 the record crop in 2004 is indication enough that the US invasion resulted in opium production soaring to its greatest height ever when before the invasion the Taliban were wiping it out and had set the death penalty as punishment for growing the crop.

[LearJett+]

Nowhere does it say that it is higher than ever.

 

What makes you think the prediction was wrong?

 

Even if 2005 did end up less than 2004 the record crop in 2004 is indication enough that the US invasion resulted in opium production soaring

Then the production went down. Thus meaning that the US invasion began containing the opium trade.

 

You make it out to be that the US is condoning or somehow welcoming the opium trade there. None of your articles give that impression. If the US set the punishment for cultivating poppy seeds death, people would be in an uproar.

 

It all comes down to the fact that the US doesn't have the resources or responsibility to stamp out the opium trade in Afghanistan. It's not purposeful in any manner.

[Dr.Worthless]

A.) The government consists of so much beuracracy that if even 1 person got a sniff of any government involvement in 9/11 it'd be leaked to the press faster than (insert cliche)

 

B.) If the government really wanted to bring down the towers to send us into war and decided they wanted to setup a scheme where saudi arabian terrorists hijacked airplanes and rammed them into the world trade center, don't you think with all that planning involved they'd be smart enough to detonate the bombs inside the WTC at the moment the plane hits the building, instead of eh, 30 minutes afterwards? Hey, we spent years pulling off this huge hoax successfully, and part of our plan is to detonate the bombs that bring down the world trade center 30 minutes after the plane hits, that way everyone in the united states of america can see them go off and they'll be tipped off to our plans..

 

That just doesn't make any sense. If you assume the government has the capability to plan and execute something like this, you've gotta assume they'd be smart enough to cover their tracks.

 

C.) Just do a google search, weed through all the "OMG THERE TOTALLY IS A CONSPIRACY" from sites such as "greensagainstbush.com" or "bushi!@#$%^&*ler.net" and you'll find legitimate explinations refuting everything loose change accuses.

 

D.) http://www.infowars.com/ is the website of the man who made loose change, Alex Jones. The website speaks for itself.

[AstroProdigy]

A) The government isn't some bumbling little child that has no capabilities.

Have you ever looked at the official explanation for the fall of the towers? If the towers fell as soon as the plane hit that would be a completely ridiculous event with no explanation.

C) It's easy to say "OMG its a conspiracy nut so don't listen." When you find the proof refuting some of the stuff on that tape post the link.

D) If you disprove it then good, but actually disprove it first.

[LearJett+]

The do!@#$%^&*entary does not account for the super-heat from the ignited plane fuel.

[Dr.Worthless]

A) The government isn't some bumbling little child that has no capabilities.

Nor did I say they ever were. You honestly don't believe that someone would have blown the whistle if they found out that the government setup 9/11. FFS you can't go a week without hearing something about some "super secret government program that no one heard about until our SECRET INFORMANT came forward".

Seriously... Stop being purposefully receptive. I shouldn't have to s!@#$%^&* feed you information for you to research the validity of claims that a flash movie makes over !@#$%^&*ing google video..

 

Have you ever looked at the official explanation for the fall of the towers? If the towers fell as soon as the plane hit that would be a completely ridiculous event with no explanation.

 

Any more rediculous than claiming the government snuck in bombs and detonated them in plain view for the whole world to see?

 

C) It's easy to say "OMG its a conspiracy nut so don't listen." When you find the proof refuting some of the stuff on that tape post the link.

Ok, I'll s!@#$%^&* feed you like a child. Hopefully you'll believe the links I post, they wont provide you a nice little flash movie with a creepy voice and hip music so I don't know if they'll hold your attention for to long.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html

 

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

 

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions

One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

 

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/index.htm

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

 

Thats all for now, the information isn't hard to find. Slightly harder than some other subjects because as mentioned before you've got all the "OMG THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US MAN THEY WERE IN ON IT FOR OIL !@#$%^&* BUSH MAN HE'S HITLER" websites that all feed off of one another, cross posting and filling their sites with hearsay and no actual backing from anyone that would know wtf they were talking about. All resulting in an 1 hour 30 minute flash video that gets slapped on google and entrances folks like you, good sir.

[MonteZuma]

I agree with Dr. This debate is silly. The buildings collapsed because they were struck by fully fuelled planes. End of story.

[Guest sonic 123]

That movie was !@#$%^&*ing crap dude get some thing like south park on or simpsons i give it 2 out of 10 try to get good movies k

cos there crap

[AstroProdigy]

"Super heat"? The do!@#$%^&*entary does address that.

 

There are no secret informants here. Your argument is flawed. Nor is this some sudden conspiraccy suggested last week. It's been going on since 9/11, but no one is willing to hear it. Saying I'm being receptive is an easy way not to back up your claims...

 

I'm not saying its definetely true. I'm saying it's possible and when people are unwilling to question the government that is when the government does whatever the !@#$%^&* they want.

 

Did you watch the video or skim it? If you watched it then you would see how they dispute the stuff on your links. Either watch it or don't comment on it...

[Dr.Worthless]

.....

 

Like I said, you're willing to take the word of a guy that has a voice editing program and some flash skills over engineers, scientists, and studied professors..

 

Yes, I watched the whole video. I don't believe the planes were strapped with missles, I don't believe I want to take people's quotes taken an hour after they witnessed planes fly into the WTC as proof, I don't believe that it was a huge conspiracy, and I don't believe you're actually willing to believe unsubstantiated claims in a flash video over people that really know wtf they are talking about.

 

Like I said, the links dont provide you a flash video so you wont take the time to actually say "hmm, a 30 year professor of physics says this, BUT ALEX JONES SAYS THAT HE'S WRONG IN A FLASH VIDEO WITH SOME HIP MUSIC!!"

 

"What, engineers that have spent millions of dollars studying what caused them to fall say this?, BUT ALEX JONES SAYS NO BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS FELL BECAUSE OF A FIRE!!"

 

If you can't take the word of sources such as snopes, CadDigest, PBS, and the literal millions of other qualified, ligitimate sources out there that say the truth, continue to believe the governments out to get you.

 

BTW, work on your reading comprehention, I know its tough cause they don't make flash videos for that either....

[Dr.Worthless]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=5&c=y

 

Alex Jones claim #1. Bombs took down the WTC

 

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

 

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

 

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

 

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Alex Jones claim #2

"You can see the missles undearneath the planes as they fly up to the WTC"

 

CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

 

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Ins!@#$%^&*ute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

 

Alex Jones claim #3

"Fox News Reporter says he saw no windows on the plane, No windows = no 757!!!!"

 

CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

 

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

 

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

 

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

 

There's 9 pages of this on the link provided, or do you think the flash movie proves PM wrong?

[SeVeR]

Nowhere does it say that it is higher than ever.

Read it again, you'll see that 2004 was the heighest ever crop (this is from the first links i posted). The link i just posted informs us about how 2006 looks set to break the record again.

 

Then the production went down. Thus meaning that the US invasion began containing the opium trade.

Just how did the US invasion contain opium production when 2004 was a record year? The link i just posted shows that 2006 looks to be another record year.

 

You make it out to be that the US is condoning or somehow welcoming the opium trade there. None of your articles give that impression.

You're not going to see that anywhere. I seriously doubt Bush would ever give us his true motives for invading the Middle East.

 

It all comes down to the fact that the US doesn't have the resources or responsibility to stamp out the opium trade in Afghanistan.

It comes down to profit margins and the reflected wealth of Afghanistan's economy to the international press.

[LearJett+]

Your argument is flawed. I'm saying it's possible and when people are unwilling to question the government that is when the government does whatever the !@#$%^&* they want.

Yes, I'm all for 'thinking outside the box' (no matter how cliche it is). But if after you question and research it, see that the widely accepted answer is indeed correct, and then still not believe in what the government says, you merely create a whole new box that you're thinking in.

 

Read it again, you'll see that 2004 was the heighest ever crop (this is from the first links i posted). The link i just posted informs us about how 2006 looks set to break the record again.

You read it again. None of your sources say that 2006 looks to break any record.

 

Just how did the US invasion contain opium production when 2004 was a record year? The link i just posted shows that 2006 looks to be another record year.

It went up just after the US invaded because it had larger things to worry about (aka terrorists, insurgents). Then, after relative order was established, production decreased by 30% in the year 2005. Again, none of your sources say that 2006 looks to be a big year for opium cultivation.

 

You're not going to see that anywhere. I seriously doubt Bush would ever give us his true motives for invading the Middle East.

You read some article that opium production has gone up and automatically think that Bush invaded so that he could become the largest drug dealer in the world. This is awfully hypocritical given his hard-line position on drugs. None of your sources even suggest that he is going into the drug trade -- some crackpot (pun intended) came up with your idea about Bush's drug lust. There is no proof that the US is !@#$%^&*ociated with the selling of the drugs or anything of the sort.

 

It comes down to profit margins and the reflected wealth of Afghanistan's economy to the international press.

No - it comes down to the fact that the US had bigger problems at the time, and now are beginning to address this problem. Even if money was the motive, as you so believe, the money from the opium trade would be nothing to the US government. The hundreds of millions (at best) that the US's "share" of the opium cash wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to what the US makes in tax revenues or even spends in expenditures. Cultivating opium wouldn't be worth the risk of the public finding out.

[SeVeR]

I guess you want it spelt out to you by the UN surveys so here ya go (with the sources at the end)

 

1998 Production: 2,100 metric tons

1999 Production: 4,600 metric tons

2000 Production: 3,275 metric tons

 

At the end of July 2000, just after the harvest but before the survey results were known, the Head of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, issued a new decree concerning the crop to be planted for the 2001 harvest. It stated, "Opium poppy cultivation in the whole country is strictly prohibited."

 

2001 Production: 185 metric tons

 

That's right 185 metric tons, a 95% eradication by the Taliban.

The USA invades.

 

2002 Production: 1,278 metric tons

2003 Production: 2,865 metric tons

2004 Production: 4,200 metric tons

2005 Production: 4,100 metric tons

 

What happened to that 30% predicted drop? It ended up nearly the same as the crop in 2004.

 

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_1999-09-10_1.html (1998-1999)

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/newsletter_2000..._1_page006.html (2000 + ban)

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_2003-10-29_1.html (2001)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/waronterror/a/afghanpoppy.htm (2002-2003)

http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrel...unisnar916.html (2005)

 

The move comes two days after the Afghan government and the United Nations warned that they expect cultivation of opium poppies to increase across large swathes of the country this year. Afghanistan is the source of nearly 90 percent of the world’s opium and heroin From my link regarding 2006.

 

So an increase is predicted here by both the Afghan government and the UN. Based on 2004 and 2005 statistics 2006 looks to be another record year, hence why i said it.

 

Don't let the government pull the wool over your eyes. Just over a year after the ban was put in place and the USA realised they were serious about it they invaded, guns ablaze to knock the Taliban of their anti-drug thrones.

 

Then, after relative order was established, production decreased by 30% in the year 2005. Again, none of your sources say that 2006 looks to be a big year for opium cultivation.

From what i've researched above i can now reaffirm by comments that this is complete bullsh!t.

 

You read some article that opium production has gone up and automatically think that Bush invaded so that he could become the largest drug dealer in the world. This is awfully hypocritical given his hard-line position on drugs. None of your sources even suggest that he is going into the drug trade -- some crackpot (pun intended) came up with your idea about Bush's drug lust. There is no proof that the US is !@#$%^&*ociated with the selling of the drugs or anything of the sort.

First of all, the US is buying the drugs not selling them.... i mean Afghanistan is the country growing it so they're gonna be selling it.

 

The USA wants to keep the cost of opium low so that the big-wigs at the top of the drugs business in the USA can buy the opium at the lowest prices and keep making huge profits.

 

No - it comes down to the fact that the US had bigger problems at the time, and now are beginning to address this problem. Even if money was the motive, as you so believe, the money from the opium trade would be nothing to the US government. The hundreds of millions (at best) that the US's "share" of the opium cash wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to what the US makes in tax revenues or even spends in expenditures. Cultivating opium wouldn't be worth the risk of the public finding out.

First of all the invasion was 5 years ago and opium production is higher than ever. Signs of a decrease trumped by the government agencies to be fed to the press have not materialised to have any signs of truth behind them. Secondly its not the government making the money, its friends of the government.

[Dr.Worthless]

Don't let the government pull the wool over your eyes. Just over a year after the ban was put in place and the USA realised they were serious about it they invaded, guns ablaze to knock the Taliban of their anti-drug thrones.

 

Seriously, don't be a dumb!@#$%^&*. If the only proof to your claim is the fact that production went up you're not using sound logic, you can't jump from A to C without B.

 

The infant mortality rate went up, the USA went in to kill babies!

 

More people in Afghanistan eat beans on a daily basis than 5 years ago, the USA invaded to help the bean farmers!

 

I've heard alot of dumb!@#$%^&* theories before, but invading to increase opium production ranks up pretty !@#$%^&* high.

[MonteZuma]

Yeah. Afghanistan was about the Taliban, not the price of Opium.

 

Crazy talk.

[SeVeR]

Then why was Afghanistan invaded? Most governments in the Middle East support and fund Al-Qaeda, almost none of the terrorists came from Afghanistan, and the Taliban weren't a particulary ruthless dictatorship compared to others in the Middle East. Were they just the easiest target for Bush to take revenge on?

 

I'm not saying Opium was the only reason, i'm saying that when you want to kill two birds with one stone... then opium is big fat bird that should be squarking madly to alot more of you.

[MonteZuma]

Afghanistan was an Al Qaida training ground. There's no doubt about that. It was a haven for terrorists. The invasion of Afghanistan was important for global security.

 

Yeah. The opium issue is a problem. But it might not be as easy as it seems to end the trade.

 

Yeah. The fact that GWB and co seem(ed) to ignore the threat of terrorism from people in 'friendly' middle eastern countries is/was a problem. I'm not so sure if more can be done about that or not.

[SeVeR]

I doubt Bushes motives for eliminating terrorism because any muppet can realise that invading the Middle East will create thousands more terrorists than already existed. This is the case currently. I'm actually amazed that there haven't been further attacks in America like the ones in London, Madrid and Bali. (One could count the highly hushed up attack of the Iranian who drove a car into several people at an American university in revenge for dead Muslims as a terrorist attack, but the liberal media served Bush well in this instance).

 

Afghanistan was a terrorist training ground but so is/was Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine and most of the Middle East. Afghanistan was just the easy target for revenge and an attractive target for rebuilding the biggest opium supplier in the world (the biggest by a long way, about 90%). The price of opium must have rocketed after the succesful ban by the Taliban.

 

I think those were the two reasons to invade based on the friends of GW Bush in the Middle East, and back home.

[MonteZuma]

I doubt Bushes motives for eliminating terrorism because any muppet can realise that invading the Middle East will create thousands more terrorists than already existed.

Well. He didn't invade the 'Middle East'. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree that any muppet should have seen that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but Afghanistan was necessary.

 

I'm actually amazed that there haven't been further attacks in America like the ones in London, Madrid and Bali.

Yes. The US has been lucky.

 

(One could count the highly hushed up attack of the Iranian who drove a car into several people at an American university in revenge for dead Muslims as a terrorist attack, but the liberal media served Bush well in this instance).

I've not heard anything about this?

 

Afghanistan was a terrorist training ground but so is/was Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine and most of the Middle East.

Yes. But the leader of Al Qaida was in Afghanistan.

 

I think those were the two reasons to invade based on the friends of GW Bush in the Middle East, and back home.

He had to go after Al Qaida. The US public would have demanded it.

[SeVeR]

Well. He didn't invade the 'Middle East'. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan and Iraq are in the Middle East. That's all i was referring to; either definition is valid. Invading "parts" of the Middle East is still invading the Middle East.

 

I agree that any muppet should have seen that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but Afghanistan was necessary.

Necessary by what motives? Lust for vengeance or a genuine threat? They never found Osama Bin Laden, was he actually in Afghanistan at all? (i might have missed where we got the proof of this in the news but other than him being there "at some point" he could have spent the majority of his time anywhere.)

 

I've not heard anything about this?

Is that a question or a statement? An Iranian Muslim in America drove an SUV into a crowd of students at a popular campus gathering point at some university in America i can't remember the name of. He has told the police that he used the SUV to inflict maximum damage, he had been planning the attack for months, and had carried out the attack in revenge for Western policies and the Muslims who have perished. The incredible thing is this wasn't called a terrorist attack (to hush up the media who will catch on to the keyword: terrorist) when this is no different to 9/11, except he used a car instead of a plane here.

 

He had to go after Al Qaida. The US public would have demanded it.

Exactly. But my questions are was this purely vengeance? Is that the right way to go about invading an entire country? Was Afghanistan chosen because they were an easy target? Was the wiping out of opium exports by the Taliban

a secondary reason for Bush to invade?

[Dr.Worthless]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/06/unc.crash.ap/

 

 

 

Exactly. But my questions are was this purely vengeance? Is that the right way to go about invading an entire country? Was Afghanistan chosen because they were an easy target? Was the wiping out of opium exports by the Taliban

a secondary reason for Bush to invade?

 

Afghanistan was chosen because it was a hot bed for AQ, and likely strategic implications of its location relative to other nations. The fact that it was a relative "easy" target likely didn't hurt the decision either.

 

As far as the opium thing, you're way out in left field grabbing for straws. The cost of the war far outweighs the profits that could be made from opium. Please don't try and tell me he did it for personal wealth, or the wealth of a select few friends. That'd be even more radical.

[SeVeR]

Yep thats the story, what they don't say is what he is charged for (not terrorism).

 

Afghanistan was chosen because it was a hot bed for AQ, and likely strategic implications of its location relative to other nations. The fact that it was a relative "easy" target likely didn't hurt the decision either.

Well i would say that based on 9/11 Saudi Arabia was the biggest culprit as most of the AQ terrorists came from there. Pakistan for one has many terrorist camps and we only hear about those because Musharraf is kissing Bush's butt and announcing his plans to destroy these places. Not to mention the UAE funded the terrorists. I would like to know just how much of hotbed Afghanistan was compared to the more difficult targets in the Middle East.

 

As far as the opium thing, you're way out in left field grabbing for straws.

Possibly, i don't have anything to link Bush to the drugs-business. I only know of Bush's dealings to understand he is a business man above all-else, i only know about the rebuilding of the drugs-outflow from Afghanistan since the invasion, and i only know about the companies affiliated with members of the Bush Adminstration who make packet-loads of money off the war. I only know a bit about how a democracy in Iraq will help America's oil interests in that country for years to come.

 

The pieces come together to form my opinion, but you're certainly right that i don't have any proof. With Bush doing everything in his power to stop anyone getting proof i don't estimate getting it anytime soon (if it exists).